Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution
Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,0201,021-1,0401,041-1,060 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: Warrior of Justice
. The WHOLE CONTEXT says exactly what I said it says.

You claimed that the book contains
""Scientists generally describe the FORMATION of THE UNIVERSE as having occurred through evolution. The idea (MYTH) that living things developed fromNONliving MATTER and changed/evoled THROUGH THE AGES."

The words "myth", "NONliving" and "matter" do not occur in the entry. You have clearly fabricated those elements of the entry. Moreover, the encyclopaedia defines the theory of evolution as "The idea that all living things evolved from simple organisms and changed through the ages to produce millions of species..." The word "universe" does not appear in that definition. You are wrong when you claim that the theory of evolution addresses the origin of the universe. Darwin never wrote on the formation of the universe, and it is dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.

I don't want to reprint ENTIRE DICTIONARIES AND ENCYCLPEDIAS..

That is apparent. It is clear that you would rather fabricate claims instead.

I quote the relevant and pertinent parts that deal with the topic at ahnd.

The excerpt that you quoted, with the elements that you fabricated, was speaking of the word "evolution" in general, not the "theory of evolution". The encyclopaedia correctly defines the theory of evolution as explaining the diversification of life, but does not include any statements on the formation of the universe.
1,021 posted on 09/21/2006 8:16:11 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1015 | View Replies]

To: Warrior of Justice
I didn't lie. It's word for word from BOTH the Dictionary AND Encyclopedia...I did add emphasis to certain points, nothing more.

Adding words to a definition that are not present in the original definition is dishonesty, it is not emphasis.
1,022 posted on 09/21/2006 8:16:55 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1020 | View Replies]

Comment #1,023 Removed by Moderator

Comment #1,024 Removed by Moderator

To: Warrior of Justice
The Bible is INFALLIBLE AND INERRANT

Perhaps. But the ability of man to translate and interpret it is not.

1,025 posted on 09/21/2006 8:19:15 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian ("Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive." -- Bugs Bunny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1010 | View Replies]

Comment #1,026 Removed by Moderator

Comment #1,027 Removed by Moderator

To: Warrior of Justice

since it is demonstrably factual, it needn't "become true"


1,028 posted on 09/21/2006 8:21:56 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1024 | View Replies]

Comment #1,029 Removed by Moderator

Comment #1,030 Removed by Moderator

Comment #1,031 Removed by Moderator

To: Warrior of Justice
There is reason to doubt the authenticity of the quote allegedly from Patrick Henry. Do you have an authoritative source for the quote? The website offers no reference to show that the quote is accurate.

The website that you reference offers no reference at all for the Washington quote. When and where did Washington make the statement?

The website that you reference offers a date, but no context or source for the Adams quote. Where did he write the statement or, if it was spoken, where did he say it? How was the quote recorded?
1,032 posted on 09/21/2006 8:26:00 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1026 | View Replies]

To: Warrior of Justice
Uh, I never said I personally seen or handled carbo dating.

You claimed that carbon dating tests have yeilded dates of "millions" of years. Your claim is false, because no carbon dating test can possibly produce such an age.

.I HAVE personally seen and held sea-shells and fossils of sea-creatures on the tops of mountains and in the middle of deserts.

As has been explained, mountains are formed through the upheaval of landmasses. There is no reason to believe that the fossils that you have found arrived through any means other than undersea land being pushed upward.
1,033 posted on 09/21/2006 8:27:43 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1029 | View Replies]

Comment #1,034 Removed by Moderator

To: Warrior of Justice
Response Two. George Wasghington did say that.

When and where did he make the statement?
1,035 posted on 09/21/2006 8:28:16 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1027 | View Replies]

Comment #1,036 Removed by Moderator

Comment #1,037 Removed by Moderator

Comment #1,038 Removed by Moderator

To: Warrior of Justice

I believe you're incorrect. I've read several biographies of Franklin, and I am making no assumptions. Franklin was a rather unorthodox fellow, and believed in salvation through works. Furthermore, unlike many institutions in colonial New England, the Academy of Philadelphia was not established to be a seminary school.


1,039 posted on 09/21/2006 8:32:52 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1023 | View Replies]

To: Warrior of Justice
- BOTH were/are word for word postings...you lie.

You said that the World Book Encyclopaedia stated

"Scientists generally describe the FORMATION of THE UNIVERSE as having occurred through evolution. The idea (MYTH) that living things developed fromNONliving MATTER and changed/evoled THROUGH THE AGES.""

The actual entry reads

"Evolution is a process of change over time. The word evolution may refer to various types of change. For example, scientists generally describe the formation of the universe as having occurred through evolution."

You have clearly fabricated portions of your excerpt.
1,040 posted on 09/21/2006 8:33:38 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1038 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,001-1,0201,021-1,0401,041-1,060 ... 2,001-2,015 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson